On December 14, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in the appraisal proceeding from the 2013 acquisition of Dell Inc. Along with August’s DFC Global opinion, the court’s pronouncements in Dell will have lasting effects on the way that appraisal valuations play out for years to come. In particular, the case(s) will have a durable impact on (a) how courts weigh competing financial methodologies for assessing fair value, (b) how to scrutinize the bidding process and procedures, and (c) whether courts should distinguish among strategic bidders, financial bidders, and management bidders in making fair-value assessments.
The … Read more
Post-merger appraisal rights have attracted more than their fair share of controversy in recent years. When activated, appraisal rights give the shareholders of a Delaware target corporation the option to eschew the consideration of the proposed deal, pursuing instead a judicial determination of the “fair value” of their shares. By statutory requirement, this judicially-crafted valuation imposes no explicit burden of proof on the parties, and it must be based on all relevant factors (excluding buyer side synergies).
Although historically a sleepy corner of mergers and acquisitions litigation, appraisal proceedings have awoken dramatically in the last decade. An important … Read more
Few research topics over the last two decades have proven as alluring and elusive as corporate governance. Its allure is self-evident: Since the turn of the 21st century, a growing number of pundits, commentators, and scholars have argued that high quality corporate governance matters in creating and preserving firm value. And accordingly, various courts, legislatures, regulators, and boards of directors have introduced a host of governance reforms in response. Yet the topic is also elusive, largely because corporate governance operates through a wide variety of means, including the financial structure of a company, economic incentives, monitoring, formal authority, real authority, … Read more
Tax regulators and acquisition sponsors have long been embroiled in a cat and mouse game in the context of corporate inversions—cross-border transactions in which a U.S.-incorporated public corporation is “acquired” by a foreign entity, and the survivor’s locus of incorporation moved out of the United States. If done in compliance with applicable tax regulations, inversions typically allow American targets to avoid high U.S. corporate tax rates on worldwide income, and make use instead of far lower tax rates applied only to income generated within the survivor’s destination jurisdiction.
As tax inversions grew in popularity, federal authorities responded with a gauntlet … Read more
Some legal rights and obligations are so venerated and longstanding that they have become virtual absolutes—categorical imperatives that trump other less urgent considerations. But what happens when two such absolutes collide? This was a question that the US District Court of the Northern District of California had to wrestle with recently, in a case pitting directors’ fiduciary duties against their entrepreneurial rights to innovate.
The case concerned a medical device company’s complaint against its former director for breach of fiduciary duty. His offense? Secretly developing a new technology that competed with (and arguably improved upon) the corporation’s core product … Read more
The following post comes to us from Eric L. Talley, The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. It is based on a recent working paper, “Corporate Inversions and the Unbundling of Regulatory Competition,” which is available here.
Several prominent public corporations have recently embraced a noteworthy (and newsworthy) type of transaction known as a “tax inversion.” In a typical inversion, a US multinational corporation (MNC) merges with an operating foreign company. The entity that ultimately emerges from this transactional cocoon is invariably incorporated abroad, yet typically remains listed … Read more
The following post reproduces the text of a letter written by a group of corporate law professors at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in response to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ request for comments on the definition of “eligible organization” in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are all professors of law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, as well as specialists in the study and teaching of corporate law. This letter responds to the request published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2014 (the … Read more